Global Aviation Security Legal Instruments: from Tokyo to Beijing
(via The Hague, Montreal and Chicago)
Diana M. Stancu reviews the status of, and updates to, international legislation pertaining to the protection of civil aviation from acts of unlawful interference.
ince the 1960s, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has taken the lead role in the promotion and development of international legal instruments dealing with aviation security which has resulted in the adoption of five worldwide multilateral treaties. These legal instruments criminalise acts against international civil aviation, such as hijacking and sabotage, and facilitate the cooperation between states to make sure that such acts do not go unpunished.
S
Tokyo 1963 The 1963 Tokyo Convention on offences and certain other acts committed on board aircraft, ratified by 185 member states, was the first worldwide legal instrument on aviation security with provisions for the security of passengers and property in-flight. The States that have not ratified or acceded to the Convention are Dominica, Eritrea, Kiribati, Federated
20
States of Micronesia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, San Marino, Somalia, South Sudan, and Timor-Leste. The 1970 Hague Convention for the suppression of unlawful seizure of aircraft and the 1971 Montreal Convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation followed shortly after the entry into force of the Tokyo Convention broadening the criminalisation of acts involving aircraft and passengers.
The Hague 1970
The 1970 Hague Convention made significant contributions to the effort of the international community to curb the unlawful seizure of aircraft and to reduce the threat caused to international civil aviation. It also enlarged the number of states competent to exercise jurisdiction over a hijacker - contracting parties having the power to exercise jurisdiction over a hijacker if such a state is affected by the offence committed - and obliged states
Download your FREE ASI "iPad/iPhone APP" NOW
to include hijacking in extradition treaties concluded between each other. Notwithstanding its efficiency in some areas, the Convention has a series of weaknesses. The offence must be committed by a person on board an aircraft ‘in-flight’; the aircraft being deemed to be in-flight at any time from the moment when all its external doors are closed following embarkation until the moment when any such doors are opened for disembarkation. Therefore, any hijacking initiated or attempted before the closing of the doors of the aircraft after embarkation, or after the opening of the doors for disembarkation, is not covered. An accomplice offence only falls within the ambit of the Convention if the assistance is provided whilst the person is on board the aircraft in-flight. Furthermore, it does not cover the unlawful interference with air navigation facilities and services such as airports, air traffic control and radio communications.
June 2013 Aviationsecurityinternational
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52